USAF Loses UAV Over Populated Area In Training Exercise

[Larry Dighera]

Should military hardware be permitted to operate over the heads of
citizens in the CONUS?


So, the USAF is permitted to fly UAVs in training missions over
populated areas?

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Southeast+25th+Avenue,+Ocala,fl&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.555061,58.359375&ie=UTF8&ll=29.124573,-82.10289&spn=0.026355,0.028496&t=h&z=15
Who approved this? Why can't the military conduct training missions
where there is less danger of consequences to private citizens?

Doesn't the USAF UAV have a means of destructing the UAV in the event
it becomes uncontrollable? What would be the likely result if one of
these boy-toys hit the windshield of a car at freeway speeds?


http://www.local6.com/news/16189342/detail.html
Air Force Spy Drone Vanishes In Central Fla.

POSTED: 1:27 pm EDT May 7, 2008
UPDATED: 9:23 am EDT May 8, 2008

* Video: Air Force Spy Drone Vanishes
http://www.local6.com/news/16189342/detail.html#

OCALA, Fla. -- U.S. Air Force officials were searching for a
unmanned spy air craft that vanished in the Marion County sky
Tuesday.

The Air Force was conducting training with the UAV Raven at about
4 p.m. Tuesday when the aircraft was launched from an open field
in the 500 block of Southeast 25th Avenue in Ocala.

Upon launch, the Raven immediately turned eastward and failed to
respond to all commands from the controllers, Ocala police said.

The Raven, which has an approximate wingspan of 6 feet, landed at
an unknown location, possibly in the Ocala National Forest, police
said.

Air Force officials who said they want to recover the Raven are
seeking help in locating it.

The Raven can fly up to 6.2 miles at speeds up to 60 mph,
according to officials.



http://www.defense-update.com/products/r/raven.htm
Ravens are supporting Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan,
enhancing U.S. Army, Special Operation (SOCOM) forces and other
services, performing reconnaissance, surveillance, and target
acquisition (RSTA). Since 2004, the Army bought 1,000 Raven
systems, comprising of 3,000 air vehicles. ...




http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/raven-uav-draws-raves-from-the-field-067/
Raven UAV Draws Raves From The Field

24-Feb-2005 05:38 EST
Weighing in at 4.5 pounds, with a 3-foot body and a 5-foot
wingspan, the Raven UAV is so small that it’s launched by hand.

Field Success
AIR_UAV_RQ-11_Raven.jpg
RQ-11 Raven

The RQ-11 Raven is a lighter, smaller successor to AeroVironment’s
FQM-151 Pointer UAV, which was used in Desert Storm (1991) and is
still in use with some Special Forces units.

Maj. Chris Brown told the Army News Service that “We had one
commander’s team find an IED [DID: a do-it-yourself land mine] on
its first mission, and the commander has been sold ever since.”

As a subsequent StrategyPage article has noted:

“What makes this little (4.2 pounds) bird so popular is its low
cost ($25,000 each) and performance (can stay in the air for 80
minutes at a time). The Raven is battery powered, and carries a
color day vidcam, or a two color infrared night camera. Both
cameras broadcast real time video back to the operator, who
controls the Raven via a laptop computer. The Raven can go as fast
as 90 kilometers an hour, but usually cruises between 40 and 50.
It can go as far as 15 kilometers from its controller on the
ground, and usually flies a preprogrammed route, using GPS for
navigation. ...

“One of the best pilots in the 1st Cav. is a cook, but that
doesn’t mean we don’t have … scouts operating the Raven,” he said.
“Some of these kids have been raised with Playstation in their
hands and are better able to handle watching a screen and
controlling the aircraft.” ...





http://video.aol.com/video-detail/raven-uav-flight-and-landing/2806087147
Raven UAV flight and landing video

The Raven is light UAV equipped with several camera (including
thermal, I thin...k) that can be used over a disaster site to
provide overhead views. It relies on an electric motor and
batteries that provide about 30 minutes of loiter. Its GPS allows
it to fly a pattern which minimizes operator requirements. The
most interesting thing is that it is designed to shed kinetic
energy on landing by falling apart. Filmed at Disaster City, Texas
in 2006 during the NIST/DHS Response Robot Evaluation Exercise.





http://www.difesa.it/NR/rdonlyres/43793A14-69AF-456A-B238-13CDAB72371B/11430/OCTOBER2007.pdf
DIREZIONE GENERALE PER GLI ARMAMENTI AERONAUTICI
(ARMAEREO)
N.12 Very Close Range RAVEN UAV Systems and relevant initial
logistic
Contracting authority: Armaereo – 1st Department – 4th Division
Contact tel.: +39 06 4986 5688
Future purchase ref. N°: N.P. 041/06/018 dated 13/05/2006
Procurement date: 31 Dec 2007
QA standards: ISO 9001-2000
Summary of requirements: n.12 Very Close Range UAV “Raven” Systems
and associated initial logistic.
Expression of interest due: N/A
Other information: The procurement will be excuted through a sole
source contract with Aero Vironment Inc. 69, Moreland Rd – Simi
Valey – California – 93065 – USA , which is the desingner
and manufacturer of the Raven UAV System. This contract
contnues the Raven systems procurement already made in
2005 by IT MoD – Direzione Generale Armamenti
Terrestri.
=================================

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Should military hardware be permitted to operate over the heads of
> citizens in the CONUS?
>

Of course.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Should military hardware be permitted to operate over the heads of
> citizens in the CONUS?
>

Yes. Just as those who fly model airplanes and real airplanes for that
can do so.

>
> So, the USAF is permitted to fly UAVs in training missions over
> populated areas?

Yes



>
> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Southeast+25th+Avenue,+Ocala,fl&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.555061,58.359375&ie=UTF8&ll=29.124573,-82.10289&spn=0.026355,0.028496&t=h&z=15
> Who approved this? Why can't the military conduct training missions
> where there is less danger of consequences to private citizens?
>

Civilians conduct training missions over private citizens all the time
in aircraft that way a lot more than 4 pounds.


> Doesn't the USAF UAV have a means of destructing the UAV in the event
> it becomes uncontrollable? What would be the likely result if one of
> these boy-toys hit the windshield of a car at freeway speeds?
>


So some how in your mind a 4 pound model airplane is worse than a 4
pound model airplane with explosive in it?

It would suck, but so would a part of a 172 that fell off in flight. Are
you suggesting the banning of all aircraft above populated areas?

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> Should military hardware be permitted to operate over the heads of
> citizens in the CONUS?

Yes, just like GA and airlines should be permitted, but "Ocala National
Forest" doesn't sound very populated.

[snip more typical Dighera anti-military bloviating]

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:18:48 -0400, "John T"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>
>> Should military hardware be permitted to operate over the heads of
>> citizens in the CONUS?
>
>Yes, just like GA and airlines should be permitted,

The airlines and GA do not operate hardware DESIGNED FOR MILITARY USE
over the heads of the US populous.

Is there some specific reason the military MUST operate their UAV over
populated areas?

I believe permitting the military to establish a precedent of training
over populated areas is not in the best interest of our citizens.

>but "Ocala National Forest" doesn't sound very populated.
>

How does this sound:

The Air Force was conducting training with the UAV Raven at about
4 p.m. Tuesday when the aircraft was launched from an open field
in the 500 block of Southeast 25th Avenue in Ocala.

Had you bothered to examine the satellite image of the area in the
link I provided, you'd see that your assumption was erroneous.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Southeast+25th+Avenue,+Ocala,fl&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.555061,58.359375&ie=UTF8&ll=29.124573,-82.10289&spn=0.026355,0.028496&t=h&z=15

>[snip more typical Dighera anti-military bloviating]

Your choice to attempt to characterize my words as 'blovating,' while
providing me with a new word-of-the-day, was unfortunate, because
there was nothing pompous among them.

Why do you find it necessary to defend the military over the best
interests of the citizens of our noble nation?

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 09 May 2008 14:18:00 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> Should military hardware be permitted to operate over the heads of
>> citizens in the CONUS?
>>
>
>Yes. Just as those who fly model airplanes and real airplanes for that
>can do so.
>

Normally model aircraft are operated over unpopulated areas at
designate fields. In fact, the American Modeling Association demands
that and more of model airplane operators:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/Memanual.PDF
RADIO CONTROL
1. All model flying shall be conducted in a manner to avoid over
flight of unprotected people.
2. I will have completed a successful radio equipment ground-range
check before the first flight of a new or repaired model aircraft.
3. I will not fly my model aircraft in the presence of spectators
until I become a proficient flier, unless I am assisted by an
experienced pilot.
4. At all flying sites a safety line or lines must be established,
in front of which all flying takes place. Only personnel associated
with flying the model aircraft are allowed at or in front of the
safety line. In the case of airshows or demonstrations a straight
safety line must be established. An area away from the safety line
must be maintained for spectators. Intentional flying behind the
safety line is prohibited.
5. I will operate my model aircraft using only radio-control
frequencies currently allowed by the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). Only individuals properly licensed by the FCC are authorized to
operate equipment on Amateur Band frequencies.
6. I will not knowingly operate my model aircraft within three (3)
miles of any preexisting flying site without a frequency-management
agreement. A frequency management agreement may be an allocation of
frequencies for each site, a day-use agreement between sites, or
testing which determines that no interference exists. A
frequency-management agreement may exist between two or more AMA
chartered clubs, AMA clubs and individual AMA members, or individual
AMA members. Frequency-management agreements, including an
interference test report if the agreement indicates no interference
exists, will be signed by all parties and copies provided to AMA
Headquarters.
7. With the exception of events flown under official AMA
Competition Regulations rules, excluding takeoff and landing, no
powered model may be flown outdoors closer than 25 feet to any
individual, except for the pilot and the pilot’s helper(s) located at
the flightline.
8. Under no circumstances may a pilot or other person touch a
model aircraft in flight while it is still under power, except to
divert it from striking an individual.
9. Radio-controlled night flying is limited to low-performance
model aircraft (less than 100 mph). The model aircraft must be
equipped with a lighting system which clearly defines the aircraft’s
attitude and direction at all times.
10. The operator of a radio-controlled model aircraft shall
control it during the entire flight, maintaining visual contact
without enhancement other than by corrective lenses that are
prescribed for the pilot. No model aircraft shall be equipped with
devices which allow it to be flown to a selected location which is
beyond the visual range of the pilot.

>>
>> So, the USAF is permitted to fly UAVs in training missions over
>> populated areas?
>
>Yes
>

I can see where military UAV operation may be appropriate in times of
emergency, but they were training, and completely lost control of the
aircraft, and had no way to protect innocent citizens from the hazard
it caused. Wouldn't it be more prudent to conduct military TRAINING
over unpopulated areas? Was there some specific need to train over a
populated area?

>
>>
>> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Southeast+25th+Avenue,+Ocala,fl&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.555061,58.359375&ie=UTF8&ll=29.124573,-82.10289&spn=0.026355,0.028496&t=h&z=15
>> Who approved this? Why can't the military conduct training missions
>> where there is less danger of consequences to private citizens?
>>
>
>Civilians conduct training missions over private citizens all the time
>in aircraft that way [sic] a lot more than 4 pounds.
>

They don't do it with hardware designed for military use, unless it
has proven it is not a hazard. They don't do it without a responsible
PIC at the helm.

Do you believe, that it is appropriate for the military to loose their
uncontrollable unmanned aerial technology among the populous for no
good reason?

>
>> Doesn't the USAF UAV have a means of destructing the UAV in the event
>> it becomes uncontrollable? What would be the likely result if one of
>> these boy-toys hit the windshield of a car at freeway speeds?
>>
>
>So some how in your mind a 4 pound model airplane is worse than a 4
>pound model airplane with explosive in it?
>

It would be a simple matter for the Raven UAV to be equipped with the
ability to deflect the horizontal stabilizer into a position that
would cause it to stall (as is done with free-flight model aircraft)
and return to earth.

>It would suck, but so would a part of a 172 that fell off in flight. Are
>you suggesting the banning of all aircraft above populated areas?

Was the Raven UAV certified by the FAA, like the Cessna 172? Is the
Raven UAV inspected by FAA certified mechanics like an airworthy
Cessna 172?

Are you unable to discern the difference between uncertified, unmanned
military hardware operated without reason over populated areas and FAA
certified, inspected, and maintained transport that must necessarily
be operated over populated areas to be useful?

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:18:48 -0400, "John T"
> > wrote in
> >:

> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
> >>
> >> Should military hardware be permitted to operate over the heads of
> >> citizens in the CONUS?
> >
> >Yes, just like GA and airlines should be permitted,

> The airlines and GA do not operate hardware DESIGNED FOR MILITARY USE
> over the heads of the US populous.

What is the difference between an airplane designed to carry guns
and bombs and an airplane designed to carry people and cargo?

Are military aircraft subject to the wings falling off in flight?

> Is there some specific reason the military MUST operate their UAV over
> populated areas?

> I believe permitting the military to establish a precedent of training
> over populated areas is not in the best interest of our citizens.

You are roughly 80 some years too late to "establish a precedent".

The US military has been training over populated areas since not too
long after the invention of the airplane.

Would it shock you to know that during the Cold War USAF SAC bombers
regularly did training bomb runs on most major US cities while USA ADA
missle sites trained to defend against such bomb runs?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> The airlines and GA do not operate hardware DESIGNED FOR MILITARY USE
> over the heads of the US populous.

This "military use" is the same purpose as many (dare I say most?) GA
flights: Sightseeing.

> Is there some specific reason the military MUST operate their UAV over
> populated areas?

Do you know the specific reason for this specific training flight?

Your question can easily be changed to (and often is): "Is there some
specific reason GA planes MUST operate over populated areas?"

> Had you bothered to examine the satellite image of the area in the
> link I provided, you'd see that your assumption was erroneous.

It was your post, not my assumption, that listed the Ocala National Forest
as the likely termination point.

> Why do you find it necessary to defend the military over the best
> interests of the citizens of our noble nation?

The better question is: Why do you find it necessary to take every
opportunity to denigrate the military defending our noble nation?

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 9 May 2008 17:27:09 -0400, "John T"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>
>> Had you bothered to examine the satellite image of the area in the
>> link I provided, you'd see that your assumption was erroneous.
>
>It was your post, not my assumption, that listed the Ocala National Forest
>as the likely termination point.
>

The information I cited clearly stated:

the aircraft was launched from an open field
in the 500 block of Southeast 25th Avenue in Ocala.

And I provided a link to the satellite image of the area.

The termination point of the out of control military Raven UAV flight
is immaterial. This UAV is capable of 60 mph flight for 30 minutes
from the information I read.

>
>> Why do you find it necessary to defend the military over the best
>> interests of the citizens of our noble nation?
>
>The better question is: Why do you find it necessary to take every
>opportunity to denigrate the military defending our noble nation?

I denigrated on one. Facts are facts.

Perhaps you'll be good enough to answer my question with a thoughtful
response instead of another question this time.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 09 May 2008 21:05:04 GMT, wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:18:48 -0400, "John T"
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>
>> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>
>> >>
>> Is there some specific reason the military MUST operate their UAV over
>> populated areas?
>
>> I believe permitting the military to establish a precedent of training
>> over populated areas is not in the best interest of our citizens.
>
>You are roughly 80 some years too late to "establish a precedent".
>

Please provide objective evidence that the military has been operating
UAVs over populated areas for 80 years.

>The US military has been training over populated areas since not too
>long after the invention of the airplane.
>

Perhaps, but that doesn't address my opinion about military UAV
operations.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 14:18:00 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> > wrote in
> >:

> >Larry Dighera wrote:
> >> Should military hardware be permitted to operate over the heads of
> >> citizens in the CONUS?
> >>
> >
> >Yes. Just as those who fly model airplanes and real airplanes for that
> >can do so.
> >

> Normally model aircraft are operated over unpopulated areas at
> designate fields. In fact, the American Modeling Association demands
> that and more of model airplane operators:

Normally model aircraft are operated out of empty fields and sometimes
parking lots which may or may not be close to other things.

The American Modeling Association has no authority over anything other
than it's own events and the only thing in your quote about proximety
to others is this one:

<snip>

> 7. With the exception of events flown under official AMA
> Competition Regulations rules, excluding takeoff and landing, no
> powered model may be flown outdoors closer than 25 feet to any
> individual, except for the pilot and the pilot?s helper(s) located at
> the flightline.

Yeah, 25 feet is lots of separation.

<snip>

> They don't do it with hardware designed for military use, unless it
> has proven it is not a hazard. They don't do it without a responsible
> PIC at the helm.

What is your fixation with "hardware designed for military use"?

Does something designed for civilian use hurt less if it hits you
than something designed for military use?

> Do you believe, that it is appropriate for the military to loose their
> uncontrollable unmanned aerial technology among the populous for no
> good reason?

<snip rest>

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:05:02 GMT, wrote in
>:

>
>> They don't do it with hardware designed for military use, unless it
>> has proven it is not a hazard. They don't do it without a responsible
>> PIC at the helm.
>
>What is your fixation with "hardware designed for military use"?
>
>Does something designed for civilian use hurt less if it hits you
>than something designed for military use?

I believe, that if the hardware had been designed for civil use,
safeguards would have been designed in. In a war theater there is no
need for those sorts of safeguards, so training operations employing
hardware not designed for civil operation is inappropriate.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 9 May 2008 17:27:09 -0400, "John T"
> > wrote in
> >:

> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
> >>
> >> Had you bothered to examine the satellite image of the area in the
> >> link I provided, you'd see that your assumption was erroneous.
> >
> >It was your post, not my assumption, that listed the Ocala National Forest
> >as the likely termination point.
> >

> The information I cited clearly stated:

> the aircraft was launched from an open field
> in the 500 block of Southeast 25th Avenue in Ocala.

> And I provided a link to the satellite image of the area.

You call that a populous area?

This is a populous area:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=34.070436,-117.660613&spn=0.028581,0.029483&t=h&z=15


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Don't worry, it's just Larry being Chicken Little again, running around
saying the sky is falling.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:05:02 GMT, wrote in
> >:

> >
> >> They don't do it with hardware designed for military use, unless it
> >> has proven it is not a hazard. They don't do it without a responsible
> >> PIC at the helm.
> >
> >What is your fixation with "hardware designed for military use"?
> >
> >Does something designed for civilian use hurt less if it hits you
> >than something designed for military use?

> I believe, that if the hardware had been designed for civil use,
> safeguards would have been designed in.

Safeguards such as what?

Don't bother to mention R/C models that stall themselves when control
is lost as that only exists to help recove the thing and not all of them
do that.

> In a war theater there is no
> need for those sorts of safeguards, so training operations employing
> hardware not designed for civil operation is inappropriate.

So there should be training bombers and war bombers, training tanks
and war tanks, training rifles and war rifles, training Humvees and
war Humvees...

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 21:05:04 GMT, wrote in
> >:

> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:18:48 -0400, "John T"
> >> > wrote in
> >> >:
> >
> >> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> >>
> >> Is there some specific reason the military MUST operate their UAV over
> >> populated areas?
> >
> >> I believe permitting the military to establish a precedent of training
> >> over populated areas is not in the best interest of our citizens.
> >
> >You are roughly 80 some years too late to "establish a precedent".
> >

> Please provide objective evidence that the military has been operating
> UAVs over populated areas for 80 years.

> >The US military has been training over populated areas since not too
> >long after the invention of the airplane.
> >

> Perhaps, but that doesn't address my opinion about military UAV
> operations.

OK, if you want to be explicit and limit the discussion to UAV's,
what is the diffence between a civilian R/C airplane and a military
UAV other than the UAV is built to mil spec, totally tested, built
by people under constant supervision to defined standards, has a
guaranteed interference free operating frequency, usually has GPS
tracking, and is operated by a trained crew while a R/C model is
built by some guy in a basement with electronics from Taiwan,
operated by the same guy who may or may not be sober at the moment,
and is subject to interference from every other Taiwanese R/C
transmitter in the area and may or may not have the money to pay
for any damage he causes?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> Facts are facts.

Quite true. It's always the adjectives and surrounding questions that expose
the agenda of the "reporter".

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> This UAV is capable of 60 mph flight for 30 minutes
> from the information I read.

BTW, how far is 60mph for 30 minutes? 30 miles. That's a lot farther than
the 10km/6.2mi range I've seen listed for the Raven - including the links
you provided. Did you read those?

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:05 GMT, wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:05:02 GMT, wrote in
>> >:
>
>
>> In a war theater there is no
>> need for those sorts of safeguards, so training operations employing
>> hardware not designed for civil operation is inappropriate.
>
>So there should be training bombers and war bombers, training tanks
>and war tanks, training rifles and war rifles, training Humvees and
>war Humvees...

No. If at all, there should be UAVs that are designed for domestic
operations during peacetime, instead of hardware designed for use in
war theaters being used domestically.

And unless the military can show good cause to train over cities,
their UAV training should be restricted to unpopulated areas.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> The airlines and GA do not operate hardware DESIGNED FOR MILITARY USE
> over the heads of the US populous.
>

So what? Are you saying hardware DESIGNED FOR MILITARY USE is more likely
to fall out of the sky?


>
> Is there some specific reason the military MUST operate their UAV over
> populated areas?
>

Any thinking human being would assume the mission called for it. Why do you
think the military operates their UAV over populated areas?


>
> I believe permitting the military to establish a precedent of training
> over populated areas is not in the best interest of our citizens.
>

I don't believe many citizens care what you believe.


>
> Why do you find it necessary to defend the military over the best
> interests of the citizens of our noble nation?
>

It isn't necessary. The situation is not as you see it.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 9 May 2008 17:26:18 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> wrote in
>:

>Don't worry, it's just Larry being Chicken Little again, running around
>saying the sky is falling.
>
So, when you're unable to address the issues raised, you dismiss the
author? That's considerably easier than explaining how USAF UAV
_training_ over populated areas is warranted.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

The sky is falling! Let's run around a scare everyone!

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:05 GMT, wrote in
> >:

> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:05:02 GMT, wrote in
> >> >:
> >
> >
> >> In a war theater there is no
> >> need for those sorts of safeguards, so training operations employing
> >> hardware not designed for civil operation is inappropriate.
> >
> >So there should be training bombers and war bombers, training tanks
> >and war tanks, training rifles and war rifles, training Humvees and
> >war Humvees...

> No. If at all, there should be UAVs that are designed for domestic
> operations during peacetime, instead of hardware designed for use in
> war theaters being used domestically.

And what precisely would be the difference between a "peacetime" UAV
and a "war theater" UAV?

I will go way out on a limb here and assume you know the military
doesn't use live ordinance for training outside of ranges established
for that purpose.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[F. Baum]

On May 9, 6:09*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> So, when you're unable to address the issues raised, you dismiss the
> author? *That's considerably easier than explaining how USAF UAV
> _training_ over populated areas is warranted. *

Duck Season !
Wabbit Season !
Duck Season !
Wabbit Season !
Duck Season !
Wabbit Season !
Duck Season !
Wabbit Season !

[F. Baum]

On May 9, 6:23*pm, "Viperdoc" >
The sky is falling! Let's run around a scare everyone!

Here is what really scares me ; If we go and remove all the elements
found to cause cancer in mice, someday we could be overrun by billions
of robust healthy rodents !
F Baum

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> No. If at all, there should be UAVs that are designed for domestic
> operations during peacetime, instead of hardware designed for use in
> war theaters being used domestically.
>

Why?


>
> And unless the military can show good cause to train over cities,
> their UAV training should be restricted to unpopulated areas.
>

What's the mission of the UAV?

[Vaughn Simon]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 21:05:04 GMT, wrote in
> >:
>>You are roughly 80 some years too late to "establish a precedent".
>>
> Please provide objective evidence that the military has been operating
> UAVs over populated areas for 80 years.
>

Why are you suddenly limiting the discussion to UAVs? Your original post
starts out with these words: "Should military hardware be permitted to operate
over the heads of citizens in the CONUS?" To me, that means ANY military
hardware. That would effectively prevent the Military from using any airport
that was not in the middle of some wasteland.

So if that is NOT what you meant to say, here is your golden opportunity to
issue a correction.

Vaughn

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 12:54:19 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 21:05:04 GMT, wrote in
>> >:
>>>You are roughly 80 some years too late to "establish a precedent".
>>>
>> Please provide objective evidence that the military has been operating
>> UAVs over populated areas for 80 years.
>>
>
> Why are you suddenly limiting the discussion to UAVs? Your original post
>starts out with these words: "Should military hardware be permitted to operate
>over the heads of citizens in the CONUS?" To me, that means ANY military
>hardware. That would effectively prevent the Military from using any airport
>that was not in the middle of some wasteland.
>
> So if that is NOT what you meant to say, here is your golden opportunity to
>issue a correction.
>
>Vaughn
>
>
>

Your inference of my words is perfectly reasonable if the context of
the article is disregarded. The subject was UAVs after all.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:35:04 GMT, wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:05 GMT, wrote in
>> >:
>
>> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:05:02 GMT, wrote in
>> >> >:
>> >
>> >
>> >> In a war theater there is no
>> >> need for those sorts of safeguards, so training operations employing
>> >> hardware not designed for civil operation is inappropriate.
>> >
>> >So there should be training bombers and war bombers, training tanks
>> >and war tanks, training rifles and war rifles, training Humvees and
>> >war Humvees...
>
>> No. If at all, there should be UAVs that are designed for domestic
>> operations during peacetime, instead of hardware designed for use in
>> war theaters being used domestically.
>
>And what precisely would be the difference between a "peacetime" UAV
>and a "war theater" UAV?
>

One would be designed to be safe for domestic operation over, and in
proximity to, the public; the other would be designed for its efficacy
in the war theater with public safeguard concerns subordinate..

>I will go way out on a limb here and assume you know the military
>doesn't use live ordinance for training outside of ranges established
>for that purpose.

I would certainly hope that to be the policy, but I don't see how it
relates to the Raven UAV in this instance. The Raven is equipped with
two video cameras, and no ordinance that I am aware of.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 9 May 2008 19:02:06 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The airlines and GA do not operate hardware DESIGNED FOR MILITARY USE
>> over the heads of the US populous.
>>
>
>So what? Are you saying hardware DESIGNED FOR MILITARY USE is more likely
>to fall out of the sky?
>

I'm saying the design criteria for equipment used in the war theater
is substantially different from that of equipment designed for use
domestically. I presume the necessity to safeguard the public in
domestic operations would not be nearly as paramount for war
apparatus.

>
>>
>> Is there some specific reason the military MUST operate their UAV over
>> populated areas?
>>
>
>Any thinking human being would assume the mission called for it.

Call me unimaginative, but I am unable to envision such a mission that
would justify domestic operation. Are you able to provide an example
or two of such missions?

>Why do you think the military operates their UAV over populated areas?
>

Because it's convenient and expedient (if the hazards are
disregarded).

>
>>
>> I believe permitting the military to establish a precedent of training
>> over populated areas is not in the best interest of our citizens.
>>
>
>I don't believe many citizens care what you believe.

Perhaps that will change if/when a military UAV causes harm to one or
two.

>
>
>>
>> Why do you find it necessary to defend the military over the best
>> interests of the citizens of our noble nation?
>>
>
>It isn't necessary. The situation is not as you see it.
>

How do you see it?

>

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 9 May 2008 19:24:30 -0400, "John T"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>
>> This UAV is capable of 60 mph flight for 30 minutes
>> from the information I read.
>
>BTW, how far is 60mph for 30 minutes? 30 miles. That's a lot farther than
>the 10km/6.2mi range I've seen listed for the Raven - including the links
>you provided. Did you read those?

Apparently the Raven UAV is capable of 60 mph flight, but only for
about 10 minutes. Please forgive my error. It just wasn't intuitive
for me to expect a $30,000.00 piece of hardware to have such a limited
out-and-back range. Oh well...

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:45:03 GMT, wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 21:05:04 GMT, wrote in
>> >:
>
>> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:18:48 -0400, "John T"
>> >> > wrote in
>> >> >:
>> >
>> >> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> Is there some specific reason the military MUST operate their UAV over
>> >> populated areas?
>> >
>> >> I believe permitting the military to establish a precedent of training
>> >> over populated areas is not in the best interest of our citizens.
>> >
>> >You are roughly 80 some years too late to "establish a precedent".
>> >
>
>> Please provide objective evidence that the military has been operating
>> UAVs over populated areas for 80 years.
>
>> >The US military has been training over populated areas since not too
>> >long after the invention of the airplane.
>> >
>
>> Perhaps, but that doesn't address my opinion about military UAV
>> operations.
>
>OK, if you want to be explicit and limit the discussion to UAV's,
>what is the diffence between a civilian R/C airplane and a military
>UAV other than the UAV is built to mil spec, totally tested, built
>by people under constant supervision to defined standards, has a
>guaranteed interference free operating frequency, usually has GPS
>tracking, and is operated by a trained crew while a R/C model is
>built by some guy in a basement with electronics from Taiwan,
>operated by the same guy who may or may not be sober at the moment,
>and is subject to interference from every other Taiwanese R/C
>transmitter in the area and may or may not have the money to pay
>for any damage he causes?

Can you cite a source for the Raven's "guaranteed interference free
operating frequency?" I doubt there exists a radio link that is
totally immune to jamming or interference.

Most RC modelers will check the aircraft's controls before launching
it. This one was reported to head east immediately after launch, so
it's likely that check wasn't performed in this instance. Perhaps a
little more training would be prudent before the military unleashes
its hardware in domestic operations.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_4_]]

On May 9, 6:51*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:05 GMT, wrote in
> >:
>
> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:05:02 GMT, wrote in
> >> >:
>
> >> In a war theater there is no
> >> need for those sorts of safeguards, so training operations employing
> >> hardware not designed for civil operation is inappropriate. *
>
> >So there should be training bombers and war bombers, training tanks
> >and war tanks, training rifles and war rifles, training Humvees and
> >war Humvees...
>
> No. *If at all, there should be UAVs that are designed for domestic
> operations during peacetime, instead of hardware designed for use in
> war theaters *being used domestically. *
>
> And unless the military can show good cause to train over cities,
> their UAV training should be restricted to unpopulated areas.

We happen to be fighting a war in an Urban area right now. Do think
that it might be helpful for the troops to train in an urban
enviroment?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:52:06 -0700 (PDT), Gig 601XL Builder
> wrote in
>:

>
>We happen to be fighting a war in an Urban area right now.

Is the urban area you mention green and swampy like the site in
Florida?

>Do think that it might be helpful for the troops to train in an urban
>enviroment?

Sure. How about over their barracks, or would that be too
inconvenient?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>And what precisely would be the difference between a "peacetime" UAV
>>and a "war theater" UAV?
>>
>
> One would be designed to be safe for domestic operation over, and in
> proximity to, the public; the other would be designed for its efficacy
> in the war theater with public safeguard concerns subordinate..
>

I assure you UAVs used for domestic operations are safe.


>>
>>I will go way out on a limb here and assume you know the military
>>doesn't use live ordinance for training outside of ranges established
>>for that purpose.
>>
>
> I would certainly hope that to be the policy, but I don't see how it
> relates to the Raven UAV in this instance. The Raven is equipped with
> two video cameras, and no ordinance that I am aware of.
>

Only UAVs operated by DOJ are equipped with ordinance.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Your inference of my words is perfectly reasonable if the context of
> the article is disregarded. The subject was UAVs after all.

Now you are confusing the issue. Are we supposed to disregard the article or
the plain meaning of your own words?

Vaughn

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm saying the design criteria for equipment used in the war theater
> is substantially different from that of equipment designed for use
> domestically.
>

Please provide verifiable dovumentation supporting that assertion.


>>
>>Any thinking human being would assume the mission called for it.
>>
>
> Call me unimaginative, but I am unable to envision such a mission that
> would justify domestic operation. Are you able to provide an example
> or two of such missions?
>

Okay. You're unimaginative.

The Raven's mission is reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition.
For the training to use the Raven in those missions to be effective it must
be done in areas with people, vehicles, and structures similar to the areas
where it is used operationally.


>>
>> Why do you think the military operates their UAV over populated areas?
>>
>
> Because it's convenient and expedient (if the hazards are
> disregarded).
>
It never ocurred to you that it was needed for effective training? What
hazards are you imagining?


>>
>>I don't believe many citizens care what you believe.
>>
>
> Perhaps that will change if/when a military UAV causes harm to one or
> two.
>

How many hours has the Raven logged with how many mishaps?


>>
>>It isn't necessary. The situation is not as you see it.
>>
>
> How do you see it?
>

Realistically.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:41:17 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>And what precisely would be the difference between a "peacetime" UAV
>>>and a "war theater" UAV?
>>>
>>
>> One would be designed to be safe for domestic operation over, and in
>> proximity to, the public; the other would be designed for its efficacy
>> in the war theater with public safeguard concerns subordinate..
>>
>
>I assure you UAVs used for domestic operations are safe.
>

Anyone who believes that an uncontrollable UAV is safe for domestic
operations is unqualified to assure much of anything, IMNSHO.

>
>>>
>>>I will go way out on a limb here and assume you know the military
>>>doesn't use live ordinance for training outside of ranges established
>>>for that purpose.
>>>
>>
>> I would certainly hope that to be the policy, but I don't see how it
>> relates to the Raven UAV in this instance. The Raven is equipped with
>> two video cameras, and no ordinance that I am aware of.
>>
>
>Only UAVs operated by DOJ are equipped with ordinance.
>

You mean domestically operated, right? You wouldn't want to confuse
poor Mr. Simon. :-)

So the DOJ is patrolling our domestic boarders with live ordinance? If
so, it begs the question, what potential hazard do their UAVs pose to
our citizens in the event they become uncontrollable or the command
link is compromised by bad guys? Please don't attempt to get me to
believe that that is not possible.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:41:17 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>And what precisely would be the difference between a "peacetime" UAV
>>>>and a "war theater" UAV?
>>>>
>>>
>>> One would be designed to be safe for domestic operation over, and in
>>> proximity to, the public; the other would be designed for its
efficacy
>>> in the war theater with public safeguard concerns subordinate..
>>>
>>
>>I assure you UAVs used for domestic operations are safe.
>>
>
> Anyone who believes that an uncontrollable UAV is safe for domestic
> operations is unqualified to assure much of anything, IMNSHO.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>I will go way out on a limb here and assume you know the military
>>>>doesn't use live ordinance for training outside of ranges
established
>>>>for that purpose.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would certainly hope that to be the policy, but I don't see how it
>>> relates to the Raven UAV in this instance. The Raven is equipped
with
>>> two video cameras, and no ordinance that I am aware of.
>>>
>>
>>Only UAVs operated by DOJ are equipped with ordinance.
>>
>
> You mean domestically operated, right? You wouldn't want to confuse
> poor Mr. Simon. :-)
>
> So the DOJ is patrolling our domestic boarders with live ordinance? If
> so, it begs the question, what potential hazard do their UAVs pose to
> our citizens in the event they become uncontrollable or the command
> link is compromised by bad guys? Please don't attempt to get me to
> believe that that is not possible.
>
>

Wow, it's like watching the dumbest Cobra fight the Dumbest mongoose
ever and they're both using water pistols filled with grape juice as
weapons.


Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:57:20 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Call me unimaginative, but I am unable to envision such a mission that
>> would justify domestic operation. Are you able to provide an example
>> or two of such missions?
>>
>
>Okay. You're unimaginative.
>
>The Raven's mission is reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition.
>For the training to use the Raven in those missions to be effective it must
>be done in areas with people, vehicles, and structures similar to the areas
>where it is used operationally.
>

I don't believe it is very prudent of the military to operate
equipment designed for use in the war theater(s) domestically. If you
do, we have a difference of opinion.

>
>>>
>>> Why do you think the military operates their UAV over populated areas?
>>>
>>
>> Because it's convenient and expedient (if the hazards are
>> disregarded).
>>
>It never ocurred to you that it was needed for effective training?
>

I can think of alternate settings, such as over a military
installation, where the same sort of training might be conducted
without exposing civilians to the hazards it may cause. But we
wouldn't want to expose military families to the potential hazard of a
runaway UAV, would we? Let's just

>What hazards are you imagining?

I believe an out of control UAV, as occurred in this instance, is a
potential hazard. If you disagree, please permit me to fly a Raven
UAV into your windshield at freeway speeds, or into a group of school
children on a playground. :-(

>
>>>
>>>I don't believe many citizens care what you believe.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps that will change if/when a military UAV causes harm to one or
>> two.
>>
>
>How many hours has the Raven logged with how many mishaps?
>

I have no idea, other than this one incident. Is that information
publicly accessible with or without a FOIA request?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>I assure you UAVs used for domestic operations are safe.
>>
>
> Anyone who believes that an uncontrollable UAV is safe for domestic
> operations is unqualified to assure much of anything, IMNSHO.
>

UAVs are controllable.


>>>
>>> I would certainly hope that to be the policy, but I don't see how it
>>> relates to the Raven UAV in this instance. The Raven is equipped with
>>> two video cameras, and no ordinance that I am aware of.
>>>
>>
>>Only UAVs operated by DOJ are equipped with ordinance.
>>
>
> You mean domestically operated, right? You wouldn't want to confuse
> poor Mr. Simon. :-)
>
> So the DOJ is patrolling our domestic boarders with live ordinance? If
> so, it begs the question, what potential hazard do their UAVs pose to
> our citizens in the event they become uncontrollable or the command
> link is compromised by bad guys? Please don't attempt to get me to
> believe that that is not possible.
>

Live ordinance? Do you also believe the US Constitution is a "living
document"?


or·di·nance
-noun

1. an authoritative rule or law; a decree or command.
2. a public injunction or regulation: a city ordinance against excessive
horn blowing.
3. something believed to have been ordained, as by a deity or destiny.
4. Ecclesiastical. a. an established rite or ceremony.
b. a sacrament.
c. the communion.

ord·nance
-noun

1. cannon or artillery.
2. military weapons with their equipment, ammunition, etc.
3. the branch of an army that procures, stores, and issues, weapons,
munitions, and combat vehicles and maintains arsenals for their
development and testing.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> I'm saying the design criteria for equipment used in the war theater
> is substantially different from that of equipment designed for use
> domestically. I presume the necessity to safeguard the public in
> domestic operations would not be nearly as paramount for war
> apparatus.

I haven't seen any UAV specifications, but the military system specifications
I have seen all have to be safe* for all applicable operations. This includes
training. And training almost always occurs CONUS.



> Call me unimaginative, but I am unable to envision such a mission that
> would justify domestic operation. Are you able to provide an example
> or two of such missions?

Training for urban combat would require training sorties over populated
areas.



*the definition of "safe" wrt aeronauatical systems is similar to civilian
criteria.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:54:01 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>UAVs are controllable.

As born out by this incident, some are and some aren't.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 15:54:27 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> I'm saying the design criteria for equipment used in the war theater
>> is substantially different from that of equipment designed for use
>> domestically. I presume the necessity to safeguard the public in
>> domestic operations would not be nearly as paramount for war
>> apparatus.
>
>I haven't seen any UAV specifications, but the military system specifications
>I have seen all have to be safe* for all applicable operations. This includes
>training. And training almost always occurs CONUS.
>

I'm not opposed to military training within the CONUS. That would be
absurd.

>
>> Call me unimaginative, but I am unable to envision such a mission that
>> would justify domestic operation. Are you able to provide an example
>> or two of such missions?
>
>Training for urban combat would require training sorties over populated
>areas.
>

Surely there are alternative populated areas where the general public
might not be subject to runaway UAV hazards.

>
>*the definition of "safe" wrt aeronauatical systems is similar to civilian
>criteria.

Do you care to provide the definition you mention?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> As born out by this incident, some are and some aren't.
>

No. The Raven is a controllable UAV, this incident does not change that.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On May 10, 1:03 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:35:04 GMT, wrote in
> >:
>
>
>
> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:05 GMT, wrote in
> >> >:
>
> >> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:05:02 GMT, wrote in
> >> >> >:
>
> >> >> In a war theater there is no
> >> >> need for those sorts of safeguards, so training operations employing
> >> >> hardware not designed for civil operation is inappropriate.
>
> >> >So there should be training bombers and war bombers, training tanks
> >> >and war tanks, training rifles and war rifles, training Humvees and
> >> >war Humvees...
>
> >> No. If at all, there should be UAVs that are designed for domestic
> >> operations during peacetime, instead of hardware designed for use in
> >> war theaters being used domestically.
>
> >And what precisely would be the difference between a "peacetime" UAV
> >and a "war theater" UAV?
>
> One would be designed to be safe for domestic operation over, and in
> proximity to, the public; the other would be designed for its efficacy
> in the war theater with public safeguard concerns subordinate..
>
> >I will go way out on a limb here and assume you know the military
> >doesn't use live ordinance for training outside of ranges established
> >for that purpose.
>
> I would certainly hope that to be the policy, but I don't see how it
> relates to the Raven UAV in this instance. The Raven is equipped with
> two video cameras, and no ordinance that I am aware of.

Whether there is a reg or not, tanks and humvees do not conduct
training missions on public highways. Same with aerial combat
training. So Larry does have a point about military UAV training over
neighborhoods.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
...
>
> Whether there is a reg or not, tanks and humvees do not conduct
> training missions on public highways. Same with aerial combat
> training. So Larry does have a point about military UAV training over
> neighborhoods.
>

ACM is frequently conducted in MOAs that overly populated areas

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Wow, it's like watching the dumbest Cobra fight the Dumbest mongoose
> ever and they're both using water pistols filled with grape juice as
> weapons.
>
>
> Bertie

Yeah, that's a real crafty observation..

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:54:01 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>Do you also believe the US Constitution is a "living document"?

I believe that the US Constitution has been so trampled and
disregarded by the Bush administration, and former Attorney General
Ashcroft who found his carnal desires aroused to the point of draping
the bare bronze bosom of the statue of lady justice, that it is fast
becoming irrelevant. While I have won court cases based on
Constitutional guarantees, it is unclear if that will be possible in
the future.

Obligatory aviation content:
And I agree with the view I recall you have expressed in the past,
that the right to fly in the skies over our noble nation are not a
privilege, but a right.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 15:53:09 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> As born out by this incident, some are and some aren't.
>>
>
>No. The Raven is a controllable UAV, this incident does not change that.
>

Your logic escapes me.

How do you reconcile that opinion with the fact that the USAF found
the Raven UAV involved in the subject incident uncontrollable
immediately after it was launched. It would seem to me, that the
evidence it rather irrefutable against the Raven UAV being
controllable 100% of the time. So to the extent that that sort of
event, and any similar events, occur, it is obvious to an objective
observer that it not always controllable.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:54:01 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>Do you also believe the US Constitution is a "living document"?
>
> I believe that the US Constitution has been so trampled and
> disregarded by the Bush administration, and former Attorney General
> Ashcroft who found his carnal desires aroused to the point of draping
> the bare bronze bosom of the statue of lady justice, that it is fast
> becoming irrelevant. While I have won court cases based on
> Constitutional guarantees, it is unclear if that will be possible in
> the future.
>

Do you believe the US Constitution was untrampled prior to the Bush
administration?

Why don't you explain "live ordinance"? Why did you choose to snip that
part of my message?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> No. The Raven is a controllable UAV, this incident does not change that.
>>
>
> Your logic escapes me.
>

Not just mine, all logic escapes you. You've made that quite clear by what
you've posted in these forums.


>
> How do you reconcile that opinion with the fact that the USAF found
> the Raven UAV involved in the subject incident uncontrollable
> immediately after it was launched. It would seem to me, that the
> evidence it rather irrefutable against the Raven UAV being
> controllable 100% of the time. So to the extent that that sort of
> event, and any similar events, occur, it is obvious to an objective
> observer that it not always controllable.
>

There's an example. Because the Raven in this incident was uncontrollable
immediately after launch you concluded the Raven is an uncontrollable UAV.
But a person capable of logical thought would have concluded there was a
system failure of some kind.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:AboVj.61$xF6.8
@newsfe20.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> Wow, it's like watching the dumbest Cobra fight the Dumbest mongoose
>> ever and they're both using water pistols filled with grape juice as
>> weapons.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yeah, that's a real crafty observation..
>
>
It's all about the k00k, k00kie, all about the k00k.



Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:32:30 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:54:01 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>>Do you also believe the US Constitution is a "living document"?
>>
>> I believe that the US Constitution has been so trampled and
>> disregarded by the Bush administration, and former Attorney General
>> Ashcroft who found his carnal desires aroused to the point of draping
>> the bare bronze bosom of the statue of lady justice, that it is fast
>> becoming irrelevant. While I have won court cases based on
>> Constitutional guarantees, it is unclear if that will be possible in
>> the future.
>>
>
>Do you believe the US Constitution was untrampled prior to the Bush
>administration?
>

Hardly.

>Why don't you explain "live ordinance"? Why did you choose to snip that
>part of my message?
>

I made a typo. It's inconsequential.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>Do you believe the US Constitution was untrampled prior to the Bush
>>administration?
>>
>
> Hardly.
>

So why do you support the party that is most responsible for the trampling?


>>
>>Why don't you explain "live ordinance"? Why did you choose to snip that
>>part of my message?
>>
>
> I made a typo. It's inconsequential.
>

No, it wasn't a typo. If it had been you'd have recognized it when I
responded with, "Only UAVs operated by DOJ are equipped with ordinance."
Are you ashamed to admit your spelling is poor? Why?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:39:52 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> No. The Raven is a controllable UAV, this incident does not change that.
>>>
>>
>> Your logic escapes me.
>>
>
>Not just mine, all logic escapes you. You've made that quite clear by what
>you've posted in these forums.
>

I'm sorry you see it that way.

I'm tiring of this bickering. It's no longer productive.

>
>>
>> How do you reconcile that opinion with the fact that the USAF found
>> the Raven UAV involved in the subject incident uncontrollable
>> immediately after it was launched. It would seem to me, that the
>> evidence it rather irrefutable against the Raven UAV being
>> controllable 100% of the time. So to the extent that that sort of
>> event, and any similar events, occur, it is obvious to an objective
>> observer that it not always controllable.
>>
>
>There's an example. Because the Raven in this incident was uncontrollable
>immediately after launch you concluded the Raven is an uncontrollable UAV.
>But a person capable of logical thought would have concluded there was a
>system failure of some kind.
>

A presumptuous person perhaps. Unless you have evidence that a
"system failure" occurred, you are guessing as to the cause.

Regardless, it's clear to me that the Raven UAV is uncontrollable at
times. Whether that is due to a design flaw, personnel mismanagement
or a myriad other potential causes, it appears evident that it
occurred. If it can happen once, it can happen again.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:AboVj.61$xF6.8
> @newsfe20.lga:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>>
>>> Wow, it's like watching the dumbest Cobra fight the Dumbest mongoose
>>> ever and they're both using water pistols filled with grape juice as
>>> weapons.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Yeah, that's a real crafty observation..
>>
>>
> It's all about the k00k, k00kie, all about the k00k.
>
>
>
> Bertie

You really like typing the work k00k and K00kie don't ya. Kind of brings out
that sick little boy in you, that needs his mommy.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >Training for urban combat would require training sorties over populated
> >areas.
>
> Surely there are alternative populated areas where the general public
> might not be subject to runaway UAV hazards.

huh? How many urban areas exist that aren't populated?

> >*the definition of "safe" wrt aeronauatical systems is similar to civilian
> >criteria.
>
> Do you care to provide the definition you mention?

Look at MIL-STD-882C or D

Compare and contrast that document with AC 25.1309

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:51:54 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>Are you ashamed to admit your spelling is poor?

I'm the first to admit that my spelling is atrocious.

But I fail to see what that has to do with the subject of this message
thread.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Not just mine, all logic escapes you. You've made that quite clear by
>> what
>> you've posted in these forums.
>>
>
> I'm sorry you see it that way.
>

You're sorry I see things as they are? My hearing is also quite good, are
you sorry for that as well?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:AboVj.61$xF6.8
>> @newsfe20.lga:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>>
>>>> Wow, it's like watching the dumbest Cobra fight the Dumbest
>>>> mongoose ever and they're both using water pistols filled with
>>>> grape juice as weapons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's a real crafty observation..
>>>
>>>
>> It's all about the k00k, k00kie, all about the k00k.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You really like typing the work k00k and K00kie don't ya. Kind of
> brings out that sick little boy in you, that needs his mommy.


Nope. just describes you to a T. It's a standard usenet term, BTW. But
you don;t know any of those. ....


Bertie

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>Are you ashamed to admit your spelling is poor?
>>
>
> I'm the first to admit that my spelling is atrocious.
>

Then why did you attempt to pass it off as a typo?

You shouldn't be ashamed of your lack of education. Did you miss high
school because you had to help support your family?

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> So the DOJ is patrolling our domestic boarders with live ordinance? If
> so, it begs the question, what potential hazard do their UAVs pose to
> our citizens in the event they become uncontrollable or the command
> link is compromised by bad guys? Please don't attempt to get me to
> believe that that is not possible.

Your security is much too important to allow any concern for your safety.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 17:06:16 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Not just mine, all logic escapes you. You've made that quite clear by
>>> what
>>> you've posted in these forums.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry you see it that way.
>>
>
>You're sorry I see things as they are? My hearing is also quite good, are
>you sorry for that as well?
>

For some reason you seem bent on digressing from the subject of this
message thread, and are attempting to make it personal. While I truly
admire your thoughtful contributions to this newsgroup, and make every
attempt to respect you, your insistence on making the discussion
personal forces me to abandon it. Out.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Nope. just describes you to a T. It's a standard usenet term, BTW. But
> you don;t know any of those. ....
>
>
> Bertie

Ah go ahead. Type a few more. It's what juveniles do.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:YapVj.92$yP7.44
@newsfe18.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> Nope. just describes you to a T. It's a standard usenet term, BTW.
But
>> you don;t know any of those. ....
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Ah go ahead. Type a few more. It's what juveniles do.
>
>

Sticks and stones, fjukkwit.
>

I can do this for a looong time,,



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Sticks and stones, fjukkwit.
>>
>
> I can do this for a looong time,,
>
>
>
> Bertie

Oh I'm sure you could do this forever. Most people that have no life other
than the Usenet find it easy. Why would you be any different.

This is what losers like you and MX do.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> Sticks and stones, fjukkwit.
>>>
>>
>> I can do this for a looong time,,
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Oh I'm sure you could do this forever. Most people that have no life
> other than the Usenet find it easy. Why would you be any different.
>
> This is what losers like you and MX do.
>

Nah, only when i have nothing better to do.

you really don;t take up all tht much time.


Bertie

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>You're sorry I see things as they are? My hearing is also quite good, are
>>you sorry for that as well?
>>
>
> For some reason you seem bent on digressing from the subject of this
> message thread, and are attempting to make it personal. While I truly
> admire your thoughtful contributions to this newsgroup, and make every
> attempt to respect you, your insistence on making the discussion
> personal forces me to abandon it. Out.
>

I'm not digressing at all, I'm simply following the thread.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>>
>>> Sticks and stones, fjukkwit.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can do this for a looong time,,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Oh I'm sure you could do this forever. Most people that have no life
>> other than the Usenet find it easy. Why would you be any different.
>>
>> This is what losers like you and MX do.
>>
>
> Nah, only when i have nothing better to do.
>
> you really don;t take up all tht much time.
>
>
> Bertie
>

Oh no, I won't. I won't waste the time. But anyone can look at your time and
date stamps, and message count - and it's clear you are both obsessed and
have no life. Just like Mx.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>>
>>>> Sticks and stones, fjukkwit.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can do this for a looong time,,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Oh I'm sure you could do this forever. Most people that have no life
>>> other than the Usenet find it easy. Why would you be any different.
>>>
>>> This is what losers like you and MX do.
>>>
>>
>> Nah, only when i have nothing better to do.
>>
>> you really don;t take up all tht much time.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Oh no, I won't. I won't waste the time. But anyone can look at your
> time and date stamps, and message count - and it's clear you are both
> obsessed and have no life. Just like Mx.
>

Oh no! I've been found out!

Oh well, I can always take solace in the fact that there's an even
bigger loser following me around.



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...

You couldn't stop if your life depended on it, could you Squirty ****drip?


Squirt, squirt.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> You couldn't stop if your life depended on it, could you Squirty
> ****drip?
>
>
> Squirt, squirt.
>
>
>

We'll find out. I have to die sometime!

Unfortunatley for you, I'm in positively rude health.


Bertie

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> This one was reported to head east immediately after launch, so
> it's likely that check wasn't performed in this instance.

....says the man with the massive assumptions.

> Perhaps a
> little more training would be prudent before the military unleashes
> its hardware in domestic operations.

The irony runs rampant.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> Is the urban area you mention green and swampy like the site in
> Florida?

You obviously have never been to Ocala.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Andrew Sarangan]

On May 10, 4:58 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Whether there is a reg or not, tanks and humvees do not conduct
> > training missions on public highways. Same with aerial combat
> > training. So Larry does have a point about military UAV training over
> > neighborhoods.
>
> ACM is frequently conducted in MOAs that overly populated areas

I would assume that they take every reasonable efforts to avoid
having to land in urban areas in case of engine trouble, just ilke GA
pilots are required to do. It does seem odd to me that there is a need
to fly these UAVs over populated areas when we have vast open spaces
in this country. Especially in FL, it is not hard to get to the open
waters where no one would notice if you fly a UAV all day long.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:35:04 GMT, wrote in
> >:

> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:05 GMT, wrote in
> >> >:
> >
> >> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:05:02 GMT, wrote in
> >> >> >:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> In a war theater there is no
> >> >> need for those sorts of safeguards, so training operations employing
> >> >> hardware not designed for civil operation is inappropriate.
> >> >
> >> >So there should be training bombers and war bombers, training tanks
> >> >and war tanks, training rifles and war rifles, training Humvees and
> >> >war Humvees...
> >
> >> No. If at all, there should be UAVs that are designed for domestic
> >> operations during peacetime, instead of hardware designed for use in
> >> war theaters being used domestically.
> >
> >And what precisely would be the difference between a "peacetime" UAV
> >and a "war theater" UAV?
> >

> One would be designed to be safe for domestic operation over, and in
> proximity to, the public; the other would be designed for its efficacy
> in the war theater with public safeguard concerns subordinate..

Nice arm waving.

Now, what precisely would be the difference between a "peacetime" UAV
and a "war theater" UAV?

What design parameters would be different?

If you have nothing concrete in mind, you are just babbling.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> On May 10, 1:03 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:35:04 GMT, wrote in
> > >:
> >
> >
> >
> > >Larry Dighera > wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:05 GMT, wrote in
> > >> >:
> >
> > >> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
> > >> >> On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:05:02 GMT, wrote in
> > >> >> >:
> >
> > >> >> In a war theater there is no
> > >> >> need for those sorts of safeguards, so training operations employing
> > >> >> hardware not designed for civil operation is inappropriate.
> >
> > >> >So there should be training bombers and war bombers, training tanks
> > >> >and war tanks, training rifles and war rifles, training Humvees and
> > >> >war Humvees...
> >
> > >> No. If at all, there should be UAVs that are designed for domestic
> > >> operations during peacetime, instead of hardware designed for use in
> > >> war theaters being used domestically.
> >
> > >And what precisely would be the difference between a "peacetime" UAV
> > >and a "war theater" UAV?
> >
> > One would be designed to be safe for domestic operation over, and in
> > proximity to, the public; the other would be designed for its efficacy
> > in the war theater with public safeguard concerns subordinate..
> >
> > >I will go way out on a limb here and assume you know the military
> > >doesn't use live ordinance for training outside of ranges established
> > >for that purpose.
> >
> > I would certainly hope that to be the policy, but I don't see how it
> > relates to the Raven UAV in this instance. The Raven is equipped with
> > two video cameras, and no ordinance that I am aware of.

> Whether there is a reg or not, tanks and humvees do not conduct
> training missions on public highways. Same with aerial combat
> training. So Larry does have a point about military UAV training over
> neighborhoods.

Wrong.

The military trys to avoid paved roads with heavy tracked vehicles
as they have a tendancy to tear up the road, even with road tracks,
but they do on occasion run them on public roads.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:45:03 GMT, wrote in
> >:

> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 09 May 2008 21:05:04 GMT, wrote in
> >> >:
> >
> >> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:18:48 -0400, "John T"
> >> >> > wrote in
> >> >> >:
> >> >
> >> >> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> Is there some specific reason the military MUST operate their UAV over
> >> >> populated areas?
> >> >
> >> >> I believe permitting the military to establish a precedent of training
> >> >> over populated areas is not in the best interest of our citizens.
> >> >
> >> >You are roughly 80 some years too late to "establish a precedent".
> >> >
> >
> >> Please provide objective evidence that the military has been operating
> >> UAVs over populated areas for 80 years.
> >
> >> >The US military has been training over populated areas since not too
> >> >long after the invention of the airplane.
> >> >
> >
> >> Perhaps, but that doesn't address my opinion about military UAV
> >> operations.
> >
> >OK, if you want to be explicit and limit the discussion to UAV's,
> >what is the diffence between a civilian R/C airplane and a military
> >UAV other than the UAV is built to mil spec, totally tested, built
> >by people under constant supervision to defined standards, has a
> >guaranteed interference free operating frequency, usually has GPS
> >tracking, and is operated by a trained crew while a R/C model is
> >built by some guy in a basement with electronics from Taiwan,
> >operated by the same guy who may or may not be sober at the moment,
> >and is subject to interference from every other Taiwanese R/C
> >transmitter in the area and may or may not have the money to pay
> >for any damage he causes?

> Can you cite a source for the Raven's "guaranteed interference free
> operating frequency?" I doubt there exists a radio link that is
> totally immune to jamming or interference.

See www.fcc.gov

The military gets exclusive frequencies for most of their stuff.

> Most RC modelers will check the aircraft's controls before launching
> it. This one was reported to head east immediately after launch, so
> it's likely that check wasn't performed in this instance. Perhaps a
> little more training would be prudent before the military unleashes
> its hardware in domestic operations.

Do you have any basis for this pulled out of your ass assumption or is
it just more of your taking pot shots at the military every chance you
get?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 9 May 2008 19:02:06 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:

> >
> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> The airlines and GA do not operate hardware DESIGNED FOR MILITARY USE
> >> over the heads of the US populous.
> >>
> >
> >So what? Are you saying hardware DESIGNED FOR MILITARY USE is more likely
> >to fall out of the sky?
> >

> I'm saying the design criteria for equipment used in the war theater
> is substantially different from that of equipment designed for use
> domestically. I presume the necessity to safeguard the public in
> domestic operations would not be nearly as paramount for war
> apparatus.

You keep babbling that nonsense over and over yet when pressed for
specific details, all you do is babble and arm wave the same nonsense.

Name some concrete design criteria other than being built to mil spec
which means everything is tested and test results are kept.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[John T]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message

>
> I would assume that they take every reasonable efforts to avoid
> having to land in urban areas in case of engine trouble, just ilke GA
> pilots are required to do.

Larry made a similar assertion a while back and was unable to demonstrate
such a requirement. Do you have a link to where this requirement for GA to
avoid landing in urban areas (or, as Larry put it, to be "within gliding
distance of a landing site") is specified?

I'll grant it makes sense for a pilot to avoid off-airport landings, but
that applies regardless of urban or rural.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:52:06 -0700 (PDT), Gig 601XL Builder
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> We happen to be fighting a war in an Urban area right now.
>
> Is the urban area you mention green and swampy like the site in
> Florida?

Urban is urban. If they were flying over swamp then what the hell are
you bitching about.



>
>> Do think that it might be helpful for the troops to train in an urban
>> enviroment?
>
> Sure. How about over their barracks, or would that be too
> inconvenient?

They might well need city sized area to practice. Would you be bitching
if it was a couple of kids with a R/C plane flying over the area.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 12 May 2008 09:45:14 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:52:06 -0700 (PDT), Gig 601XL Builder
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>> We happen to be fighting a war in an Urban area right now.
>>
>> Is the urban area you mention green and swampy like the site in
>> Florida?
>
>Urban is urban. If they were flying over swamp then what the hell are
>you bitching about.
>

My question was meant to refute your implication that urban
Afghanistan, or Iraq bare any resemblance to Florida.

>
>
>>
>>> Do think that it might be helpful for the troops to train in an urban
>>> enviroment?
>>
>> Sure. How about over their barracks, or would that be too
>> inconvenient?
>
>They might well need city sized area to practice. Would you be bitching
>if it was a couple of kids with a R/C plane flying over the area.

It's common among modelers to assure that the aircraft is responsive
to control inputs before it is launched. Because it was reported that
the subject Raven aircraft was uncontrollable immediately after
launch, its loss of control is consistent with not having its control
responses verified before being launched.

The vast majority of modelers fly at designated fields, not over
peoples homes and highways, so the likelihood of a mishap involving
humans is less likely. If modelers can act responsibly, perhaps the
military should take a lesson.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 09:45:14 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> > wrote in
> >:

> >Larry Dighera wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:52:06 -0700 (PDT), Gig 601XL Builder
> >> > wrote in
> >> >:
> >>
> >>> We happen to be fighting a war in an Urban area right now.
> >>
> >> Is the urban area you mention green and swampy like the site in
> >> Florida?
> >
> >Urban is urban. If they were flying over swamp then what the hell are
> >you bitching about.
> >

> My question was meant to refute your implication that urban
> Afghanistan, or Iraq bare any resemblance to Florida.

> >
> >
> >>
> >>> Do think that it might be helpful for the troops to train in an urban
> >>> enviroment?
> >>
> >> Sure. How about over their barracks, or would that be too
> >> inconvenient?
> >
> >They might well need city sized area to practice. Would you be bitching
> >if it was a couple of kids with a R/C plane flying over the area.

> It's common among modelers to assure that the aircraft is responsive
> to control inputs before it is launched. Because it was reported that
> the subject Raven aircraft was uncontrollable immediately after
> launch, its loss of control is consistent with not having its control
> responses verified before being launched.

It is also consistent with the system failing on takeoff and you have
zero information on Raven preflight procedures.

> The vast majority of modelers fly at designated fields, not over
> peoples homes and highways, so the likelihood of a mishap involving
> humans is less likely. If modelers can act responsibly, perhaps the
> military should take a lesson.

Utter nonsense.

The vast majority of modelers fly at whatever open space they can find.

There is no one to "designate" a model field.

Models often fly over homes and higways in the heavily populated areas
of the US.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 12 May 2008 15:55:05 GMT, wrote in
>:

>The vast majority of modelers fly at whatever open space they can find.

Certainly that is true out in the country, but within urban settings,
radio control model flight is usually conducted at model flying fields
for obvious reasons.

You will see from the document below, that designated model flying
fields are indeed coveted in the Los Angeles area:


http://www.edsfclub.org/30%20Years%20of%20Flying%20at%20the%20Field%20III. pdf
The city of Fountain Valley determined that 2 golf courses in Mile
Square Park were insufficient and a 3rd one was required. This was
land given to the city by the government as park land, but
ignoring the protests of modelers and other organizations who had
used the land for decades, the city created yet another urban
desert (golf course) for the sole enjoyment of those able to
afford the city’s green fees. The fliers who had enjoyed Mile
Square as a world class RC model site were forced out with no
alternatives and many chose to join us at El Dorado. This created
a bit more crowding than we were used to, but we made many new
friends and the end result has been good for all ...

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 15:55:05 GMT, wrote in
> >:
>
>> The vast majority of modelers fly at whatever open space they can find.
>
> Certainly that is true out in the country, but within urban settings,
> radio control model flight is usually conducted at model flying fields
> for obvious reasons.
>
> You will see from the document below, that designated model flying
> fields are indeed coveted in the Los Angeles area:
>
>
> http://www.edsfclub.org/30%20Years%20of%20Flying%20at%20the%20Field%20III. pdf
> The city of Fountain Valley determined that 2 golf courses in Mile
> Square Park were insufficient and a 3rd one was required. This was
> land given to the city by the government as park land, but
> ignoring the protests of modelers and other organizations who had
> used the land for decades, the city created yet another urban
> desert (golf course) for the sole enjoyment of those able to
> afford the city’s green fees. The fliers who had enjoyed Mile
> Square as a world class RC model site were forced out with no
> alternatives and many chose to join us at El Dorado. This created
> a bit more crowding than we were used to, but we made many new
> friends and the end result has been good for all ...

A press release from on R/C club wouldn't prove the point even if it
were on topic and this one isn't. You do realize that R/C fliers do fly
other than in groups. There was one flying over my house this weekend.
It took of from the street about a block away.

P.S. I did not hide under my bed an shiver in fear while it was up.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 15:55:05 GMT, wrote in
> >:

> >The vast majority of modelers fly at whatever open space they can find.

> Certainly that is true out in the country, but within urban settings,
> radio control model flight is usually conducted at model flying fields
> for obvious reasons.

Which is whatever open space they can find.

> You will see from the document below, that designated model flying
> fields are indeed coveted in the Los Angeles area:

What you see in the document you reference is that many cities in SoCal
have run the modelers out of the city owned parks so they go to whatever
open space they can find.

And once again, there is no one to "designate" a model flying field.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 17:45:04 GMT, wrote in
> >:

> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 May 2008 15:55:05 GMT, wrote in
> >> >:
> >
> >> >The vast majority of modelers fly at whatever open space they can find.
> >
> >> Certainly that is true out in the country, but within urban settings,
> >> radio control model flight is usually conducted at model flying fields
> >> for obvious reasons.
> >
> >Which is whatever open space they can find.

> It's easy to make an assertion without providing any supporting
> documentation.

You mean like you've been doing about the Raven and the USAF procedures
for operating it?

> >> You will see from the document below, that designated model flying
> >> fields are indeed coveted in the Los Angeles area:
> >
> >What you see in the document you reference is that many cities in SoCal
> >have run the modelers out of the city owned parks so they go to whatever
> >open space they can find.
> >
> >And once again, there is no one to "designate" a model flying field.

> It would seem to me, that prior to its conversion into a golf course,
> Mile Square Park was regarded by the city of Fountain Valley as a
> model flying field. But, no doubt you are able to provide evidence to
> the contrary, right?

Actually, Mile Square Park was originally known as Mile Square Naval
Outlying Landing Field until it was totally abandoned by the military
in 1974 and converted into a park.

See:

http://www.airfields-freeman.com/CA/Airfields_CA_OrangeCo_C.htm

and:

http://www.ocparks.com/milesquare/default.asp?Show=History

The park was never designated a "model flying field" but many modelers
and landsailers used the three paved runways until the city chased
them all out in 2000 to tear out the runways and expand the golf course.

The runways when they existed were a very small part of the total park.

And yes, I've actually been to Mile Square Park many times.

One thing you seem to be totally incapable of understanding is that
there is no one to "designate" a model flying field. There are no
specific law or regulations governing model flight nor any organization
empowered to do any designation.

Under US law that which is not prohibited is allowed. Or, in other
words, modelers fly anywhere there is a flat space where no one objects
to their presence.

After the Ontario Motor Speedway shut down the abandoned parking lots
were extensively used by modelers until developers chased them out.

That was next to the 10 freeway and just under the approach end to a
runway at KONT (class C) that no longer exists.

Modelers used to fly in the empty field between a housing development
and the 15 freeway in Fontana until developers built houses on the field.

Modelers are flying off a field just of the 30 freeway next to a housing
development in Highland.

You haven't a clue.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I don't believe it is very prudent of the military to operate
>> equipment designed for use in the war theater(s) domestically.
>>
>
> Do you have any rational basis for that belief?
>

It appears that you do not.


>
>>
>> I believe an out of control UAV, as occurred in this instance, is a
>> potential hazard. If you disagree, please permit me to fly a Raven
>> UAV into your windshield at freeway speeds, or into a group of school
>> children on a playground. :-(
>>
>
> How would you fly an out of control Raven UAV into my windshield at
> freeway speeds, or into a group of school children on a playground. Why
> would you desire to do that? Do you hate children? Do you hate me?
>
>
>>
>> I have no idea, other than this one incident. Is that information
>> publicly accessible with or without a FOIA request?
>>
>
> Beats me. When you find out let me know.
>

[[email protected]]

On May 10, 5:35 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in x.com...
>
>
>
> > Sticks and stones, fjukkwit.
>
> > I can do this for a looong time,,
>
> > Bertie
>
> Oh I'm sure you could do this forever. Most people that have no life other
> than the Usenet find it easy. Why would you be any different.
>
> This is what losers like you and MX do.

And you too, dimbulb. I'm just making an observation here, but you
seem to be the ring around the bathtub for the Bunyip- what does that
say about you?

[[email protected]]

On May 10, 4:26 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 15:53:09 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>
>
> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> As born out by this incident, some are and some aren't.
>
> >No. The Raven is a controllable UAV, this incident does not change that.
>
> Your logic escapes me.
>
> How do you reconcile that opinion with the fact that the USAF found
> the Raven UAV involved in the subject incident uncontrollable
> immediately after it was launched. It would seem to me, that the
> evidence it rather irrefutable against the Raven UAV being
> controllable 100% of the time. So to the extent that that sort of
> event, and any similar events, occur, it is obvious to an objective
> observer that it not always controllable.

Nothing is 100% halfwit. Geez. 45,000 (give or take but I'll bet
you'll quote 30 years of stats now to make a one word point) people
die annually in auto collisions.

By your logic that make them uncontrollable and therefore all autos
should be banned.

Are you 13 or 14?